Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

given what we have learned so far,
likely not.

what is the oil?
who sells it?

Sounds like agreement.

No.

It does look like a debate taking place.

Their seems to be an assumption that lowering the intensity of the light indicates an intention judicially to make it harder for the rejecter to see, whereas lowering the intensity of the light might serve graciously to make it easier for the rejecter to look, so that they can begin to see and perceive, but at a slower rate. than others with a higher light tolerance.

I am keen to believe what the Bible SAYS is both true and coherent. The fact that I disagree with you on the meaning behind some passages of scripture does not mean I am refusing to believe what the texts are saying. It means that while I may agree with you on what they are saying, I do not agree that the words they are saying mean what you think those words mean.

compare the following with for example Matthew 6 or His teaching in the synagogues:

we should note ((*cough* @GWH)) that the parables teach things kept hidden by God from the foundation of the world.
it is therefore certainly not evidence that the pharisees understood the parables just because they knew He would as talking about them - - that is not a thing kept secret from the foundation of the world

Yes, those texts are true. The point I am discussing is which of the proferred interpretations of the sense of a text that we agree is true, is the sense that fits most coherently with the perfect representation of God 's character that Jesus reveals via His willing incarnation, His obedient sacrificial life and crucifixion for rebels, His resurrection and His gift of the Holy Spirit to believers.

perhaps between Paul and myself. but GWH is not engaging in debate. he is transparently running headlong towards a comfirmation-biased conclusion of his own devising, completely unsupported by the things he is submitting as evidence.

any eisegetical interpretation based on what you perceive His character to be, and your personal intuition about what you believe perfect love to be, is necessarily erroneous if it contradicts the facts that these passages you agree are true lay out for us.

Matthew 13:34-35 does not say that Jesus spoke to the multitude only in parables. It says that he always incorporated parables into His teaching sessions.

Matthew 13:34-35 does not say that all parables contain only material that has been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Yes Jesus uttered thing kept secret since the beginning of the world. Yes, Jesus spoke in parables. Yes, Jesus incorporated parables into His teaching. None of this says anything about Jesus doing so with the intention that the parables would prevent people understanding. A dimmer light actually helps people who find direct light painful to open their eyes and look. Of course, even with the grace of dimmer light, some who do not want to see what is being revealed, may still refuse to open their eyes and look.

A coherent interpretation that aligns with a legitimate sense of the words used, the revelation of God's character in Christ Jesus, and eliminates the cognitive dissonance of confirming contradictory claims, is preferable to one that embraces cognitive dissonance and jars with the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

there is no contradiction between God's love and God's hiding knowledge and speaking and performing mystery.

there is clear contradiction however with claiming God did not speak in parables in order that some go on hearing and not understanding, seeing and not perceiving. He was not unclear when He told some to them it is given to know the things of the kingdom, and to others it is not granted to know: therefore He spake in parables to them.

Actually, I agree with Paul.

God may have spoken in parables with the intention that they not be able to understand. Or He may have spoken in parables because they were triggered by and unwilling to consider words spoken plainly, so he couched the teaching in a less stark and offensive light. I think the latter. For those ready for the more direct approach he unpacked the parables more clearly..

I'm open to reading proof, but Isaiah6 looks clearly judicial and Matt13:13 has Jesus reading the state of the people and teaching accordingly, and in 13:15 He speaks of those people's culpability.

there is no need for you to speculate.

Jesus told us explicitly why He taught in parables. in order that some might hear but not understand, taking away even what those who have not, have, but simultaneously to add to those who have.

as previously discussed, being 'judicial' does not make Isaiah 6 untrue.

No need to repeat for me, of course. And to be clear, by judicial all I'm intending is that the people are culpable, and God in response has determined it just to do what He does for His purposes.

I'm not sure if it's been discussed, but Jesus did not begin teaching in parables until well into His second year of ministry and thus well after He had been rejected in His proclamations, teachings, and signs done. I recall some teachings from a Messianic Jewish professor who took us through the signs Jesus did and as I recall showed us how they were signs that only Messiah was to be able to do. The signs John speaks of were all intended to prove Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.

Fruchtenbaum?